IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, A.K. CHAWLA, JJ.
TANISHQ GANGWAR & ORS - Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS - Respondents
W.P.(C) 6773 of 2018 & CM APPL. 25697-98, 28282, 28287-88, 29674-75 of 2018
Decided on : 17-08-2018
MEDICAL EDUCATION - GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS, 1997 - AMENDMENT - REGULATION 4(2)(A) - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION TO MBBS COURSE - STUDY OF BIOLOGY/BIOTECHNOLOGY AS AN ADDITIONAL SUBJECT AT 10+2 LEVEL - HELD, REGULATION 4(2)(A) TO THE EXTENT IT SETS OUT THE IMPUGNED DISQUALIFICATION “FURTHERMORE, STUDY OF BIOLOGY/BIOTECHNOLOGY AS AN ADDITIONAL SUBJECT AT 10+2 LEVEL ALSO SHALL NOT PERMISSIBLE”... ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE AS DISCRIMINATORY AND ARBITRARY.
Fact of the Case:
PETITIONERS CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS ON GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION(AMENDMENT), 2018 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA (MCI) WITH THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (UOI) AS FAR AS IT PRESCRIBES THAT CANDIDATES WHO HAVE CLEARED BIOLOGY/BIOTECHNOLOGY AS AN ADDITIONAL SUBJECT AT 10+2 LEVEL AFTER COMPLETING 10+2 WITHOUT BIOLOGY/BIOTECHNOLOGY AS A SUBJECT.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE REGULATION 4(2)(A) TO THE EXTENT IT SETS OUT THE IMPUGNED DISQUALIFICATION “FURTHERMORE, STUDY OF BIOLOGY/BIOTECHNOLOGY AS AN ADDITIONAL SUBJECT AT 10+2 LEVEL ALSO SHALL NOT PERMISSIBLE”... ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE AS DISCRIMINATORY AND ARBITRARY.
Issues: WHETHER THE REGULATION 4(2)(A) OF THE GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS, 1997, AS AMENDED, WHICH DISQUALIFIES CANDIDATES WHO HAVE STUDIED BIOLOGY/BIOTECHNOLOGY AS AN ADDITIONAL SUBJECT AT THE 10+2 LEVEL FROM APPEARING IN THE NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY-CUM-ENTRANCE TEST (NEET), IS DISCRIMINATORY AND ARBITRARY.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE REGULATION 4(2)(A) OF THE GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS, 1997, AS AMENDED, WHICH DISQUALIFIES CANDIDATES WHO HAVE STUDIED BIOLOGY/BIOTECHNOLOGY AS AN ADDITIONAL SUBJECT AT THE 10+2 LEVEL FROM APPEARING IN THE NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY-CUM-ENTRANCE TEST (NEET), IS DISCRIMINATORY AND ARBITRARY. THE COURT REASONED THAT THE REGULATION IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THOSE WHO OFFER THE RELEVANT SUBJECTS (BIOLOGY/BIOTECHNOLOGY) AS ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS DO NOT UNDERGO CLASSROOM LEARNING. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO UNDERLYING BASIS IN THE FORM OF EMPIRICAL MATERIAL, OR IN THE FORM OF ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS STATE BOARDS CURRICULA, OR SYLLABI, OR EVEN THE EXAMINATION REGULATIONS, TO SUPPORT THIS ASSUMPTION.
Final Decision: THE COURT ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AND THE APPLICATION AND DIRECTED THAT THE PETITIONERS AND THE APPLICANTS BE GRANTED FINAL ADMISSION IN THE ALLOTTED SEATS.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. In these writ proceedings, the Petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education(Amendment), 2018 (“impugned amendment” hereafter) issued by notification dated 22.01.2018 by the Medical Council of India (“MCI” hereafter) with the previous approval of the Central Government (hereafter “UOI”) as far as it prescribes that candidates who have cleared Biology/Biotechnology as an additional subject at 10+2 level after completing 10+2 without Biology/Biotechnology as a subject.
2. The impugned Regulations debarred all candidates who have passed 10+2 level with Biology/Biotechnology as an additional subject whether simultaneously or subsequently at 10+2 level. The Regulations were challenged by some students before this Court by W.P.(C) No. 1917 of 2018. During the course of hearing, the MCI, without further amending the impugned Regulations issued a clarification that the impugned Regulations does not apply to students who have studied biology/biotechnology as an additional subject simultaneously with other subjects at 10+2 level, however would debar students who had studied biology/biotechnology as additional subject subsequent of passing 10+2 without these subjects. The MCI, by way of clarification in the Court modified an existing statutory provision, without any formal amendment. The petitioners complain that this has resulted in creation of an artificial and arbitrary sub-classification amongst similarly placed categories of persons who had studied biology as an 'additional subject' at 10+2 level. The court had disposed of W.P.No.1917/2018 without considering whether the impugned regulations of MCI, in respect of petitioners and similarly placed persons who have passed biology/biotechnology as additional subject subsequent of passing 10+2 without these subjects was legal and valid.
3. The relevant facts, briefly are that all the petitioners are all students with Biology/biotechnology as additional subjects. The MCI, in 1997 with previous permission of the UOI framed the Regulation on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (GME). With respect to the eligibility criteria for taking admission to MBBS course, the Regulations provided for passing of Biology/Biotechnology as a subject at 10+2 level. On 21.12.2010, MCI framed Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2010 to enabling of the NEET examination for admission to all medical colleges. The initial Regulation with respect to eligibility inter alia provided that the candidate had to pass a qualifying examination as under (a) The higher secondary examination or the Indian School Certificate Examination which is equivalent to 10+2/Higher Secondary Examination after a period of 12 years study, the last two years of study comprising of Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Biotechnology and Mathematics or any other elective subjects with English at a level not less than core course of English as prescribed by the National Council of Educational Research and Training after the introduction of the 10+2+3 years educational structure as recommended by the National Committee on education. On 27.02.2012 MCI amended the norms through the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2012 bringing into force the 2010 Regulations prescribing for conduct of NEET and had appointed CBSE as the agency to conduct NEET. The eligibility criteria remained unchanged. On 23.10.2012, the MCI further amended the Regulation to give the CBSE the superintendence and control of NEET-UG Examination under the supervision of Central Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. This amendment too left the eligibility untouched. Later the same year, on 13.12.2012 pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court dated 13.12.2012 passed in T.C.(C) No.101/2012, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) conducted the Common Entrance
Cellular Operators Association v Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (2016) 7 SCC 703
Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors v Union of India reported in (2014) 2 SCC 305
Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. - (1999) 7 SCC 120
Khoday Distilleries v State of Karnataka 1996 (10) SCC 304
Medical Council of India v State of Karnataka - (1998) 6 SCC 131
Raghukul Tilak v Union of India 2006 (92) DRJ 356
Raghukul Tilak v Union of India AIR 2007 Del 237
Shri Sitaram Sugar Mills Company v Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 223
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.